MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092063892 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2020-0124

Discrete element modelling of rock creep behaviour using rate process theory

2020· article· en· W3092063892 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J.G. Gutiérrez-Ch, S. Senent, E. Estebanez, Rafael Jiménez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepGeotechnical engineeringJoint (building)Constitutive equationDiscrete element methodStress (linguistics)GeologyMaterials scienceRock mechanicsWork (physics)Finite element methodStructural engineeringMechanicsComposite materialEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rock creep behaviour is crucial in many rock engineering projects. Different approaches have been proposed to model rock creep behaviour; however, many cannot reproduce tertiary creep (i.e., accelerating strain rates leading to rock failure). In this work, the distinct element method (DEM) is employed, in conjunction with the rate process theory (RPT) of M.R. Kuhn and J.K. Mitchell (published in 1992) to simulate rock creep. The DEM numerical sample is built using a mixture of contact models between particles that combines the Flat Joint Contact Model and the Linear Model. Laboratory uniaxial compression creep tests conducted on intact slate samples are used as a benchmark to validate the methodology. Results demonstrate that, when properly calibrated, DEM models combined with the RPT can reproduce all creep stages observed in slate rock samples in the laboratory, including tertiary creep, without using constitutive models that incorporate an explicit dependence of strain rate on time. The DEM results also suggest that creep is associated with damage in the samples during the laboratory tests, due to new microcracks that appear when the load is applied and maintained constant at each loading stage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207